Quote:
Quite simply, there is no valid statistic that shows a link between second hand smoke and cancer, illness or death. The one most often quoted comes from a 1992 EPA report which reported 50000 deaths a year due to second-hand smoke. This study was funded by the American Cancer Society, yet the raw data of this study was never released or independently verified.
An activist named Gian Turci made a request under the Freedom of Information Act for details on the study and all he got back were blank, crossed out and censored pages. In Mr. Turci's words: "If the mountain of evidence is so real, why are the scientific community and the public denied the possibility of verification?"
Indeed. In 1998 the American Cancer Society finally retracted this statistic, stating in a press release: "The American Cancer Society will no longer use.. the statistic because we too have been unable to acquire the documentation to support this citation."
In other words, it was a lie.
|
[quote]
If you repeat something often enough, especially in this anti-scientific world, people will believe it.
RSP or "Respirable suspended particulate matter" is the crap, or amount of pollutants, in the air. Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules state that a workplace must have a RSP rating of 5000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours in order to be considered officially dangerous to workers.
A Department of Energy study in 1999 found that the average RSP level in a bar or restaurant that allows smoking to be only 67 or 135 micrograms, respectively. In 2000, the Oak Ridge national laboratory, a part of the Dept of Energy, found RSP ratings of just 9.41 and 14.9. In 1993 the American Medical Association found 117 or 348 micrograms, the highest of the bunch and yet still far below the OSHA minimum danger rating of 5000.
[\quote]
SOME QUOTES
Quote:
"..not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it could even have a protective effect."
World Health Organization, March 1998
|
Quote:
"The results are consistent with there being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer.."
London Telegraph, 1999
|
Quote:
"In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."
- Brownson et. al.
American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11
|
Quote:
"... no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace."
- Janerich et al. New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990
|
Quote:
"... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant."
- Kalandidi et al.
Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990
|
Quote:
"We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS [environmental smoke] exposure at work or in other settings."
Steenland et al.
Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996
|
Quote:
"... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...."
- Stockwell et al.
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992
|
Quote:
"There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer."
Zaridze et al., 1998
International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338
|